The right to be left alone free from governmental interference is pretty basic, and is neatly summed up in the Bill of Rights by removing unreasonable searches and seizures and removing from Federal control all rights now strictly enumerated to the control of the Several States.
The real issue behind abortion is the attempt by the people to determine what a citizen is. Again science has now indicated that the closer to term a mother gets the more obviously independent and human a fetus is. But if it ends its term as a full fledged human, does it not also imply that it must be human at its inception?
The further problem is that it has historically been each states right to determine what the definition of a citizen is and what enfranchises a citizen to be able to function as a political unit in the governmental process. The real precedent nature of Roe v. Wade is not that it suddenly granted a right that did not exist to women, but that it removed, without Constitutional Amendment, the right of the several states to determine what a citizen is and what the qualifications for enfranchisement are.
Consider, it took amendments to allow slaves to be citizens, women to vote, selection of senators which are all items which previously had been left up to states to define. Prior to each amendment, the Federal judges were forced to acknowledge the States rights to determine what a citizen was. Roe v. Wade is the first example however that I know of where the Court attempted to define a citizen for the state and justified this violation of the 10th amendment by assigning primacy to the 4th amendment.
The problem I have with the ruling is that it both supports and detracts from the Bill of Rights without amendment. When a right has to be supported in such a way it means that all parts of the Bill of Rights supersedes each other part, isn't very logical. The 4th and 10th are set up as equals with the 10th allowing states to determine all powers not granted to the Federal government. It would seem that Roe v. Wade should have been fought on a state by state basis to allow each state to determine what the definition of a citizen is.
Leia Mais…
Consider, it took amendments to allow slaves to be citizens, women to vote, selection of senators which are all items which previously had been left up to states to define. Prior to each amendment, the Federal judges were forced to acknowledge the States rights to determine what a citizen was. Roe v. Wade is the first example however that I know of where the Court attempted to define a citizen for the state and justified this violation of the 10th amendment by assigning primacy to the 4th amendment.
The problem I have with the ruling is that it both supports and detracts from the Bill of Rights without amendment. When a right has to be supported in such a way it means that all parts of the Bill of Rights supersedes each other part, isn't very logical. The 4th and 10th are set up as equals with the 10th allowing states to determine all powers not granted to the Federal government. It would seem that Roe v. Wade should have been fought on a state by state basis to allow each state to determine what the definition of a citizen is.
Posts
